United States v. Robert Perry Frogge & Clyde E. Hall, 476 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Robert Perry Frogge & Clyde E. Hall, 476 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. AO (nj, 2009-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. AO
N.J. · 2009 · confidence medium
United States v. Alexander, 526 F. 2d, 161, 166 (8th Cir.1975); United States v. Frogge, 476 F. 2d 969, 970 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. A.O.
N.J. · 2009 · confidence medium
United States v. Alexander, 526 F. 2d, 161, 166 (8th Cir.1975); United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Miriam Henao Posado, Pablo Ramirez and Irma Clemencia Hurtado
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co., 739 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 390 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380, 393 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124 , 95 S.Ct. 810 , 42 L.Ed.2d 825 (1975); United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477, 483 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 995 , 95 S.Ct. 306 , 42 L.Ed.2d 267 (1974); United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 849 , 94 S.Ct. 138 , 38 L.Ed.2d 97 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 884 F.2d 167 , 169 n. 2 (5th Cir.1989) (Higginbotham, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc, noting Frye in purely informational context); Barrel of Fun, 739 F.2d at 1031 & n. 9 (holding voice stress analysis technique inadmissible); United States v. Valdez, 722 F.2d at 1200 (post-hypnotic testimony admissible); United States v. Clark, 622 F.2d 917 (5th Cir.1980) (vacating order granting rehearing en banc on polygraph testimony case), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1128 , 101 S.Ct. 949 , 67 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981); United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corporation
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
OF LITIG. 129 (1987) (analyzing Rule 402's general abolition of common-law barriers to admissibility, including Frye, that are not reduced to statute). 42 Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 884 F.2d 167 , 169 n. 2 (5th Cir.1989) (Higginbotham, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc, noting Frye in purely informational context); Barrel of Fun, 739 F.2d at 1031 & n. 9 (holding voice stress analysis technique inadmissible); United States v. Valdez, 722 F.2d at 1200 (post-hypnotic testimony admissible); United States v. Clark, 622 F.2d 917 (5th Cir.1980) (vacating order granting …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bennett v. City of Grand Prairie
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
United States v. Masri, 547 F.2d 932, 936 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 309 , 54 L.Ed.2d 195 (1977) (footnote omitted); Cochran, 499 F.2d at 393 ; Gloria, 494 F.2d at 483 ; United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 849 , 94 S.Ct. 138 , 38 L.Ed.2d 97 (1973); see Masri v. United States, 434 U.S. 907, 907-08 , 98 S.Ct. 309, 309-10 , 54 L.Ed.2d 195 (1977) (White, J., dissenting from denial of petition for certiorari). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bennett v. City of Grand Prairie, Texas
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Art. 4413(29cc), Sec. 27 6 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 926, 930 , 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3412, 3414 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (1983) (portions of text omitted) (citing Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Col.L.R. 1197, 1237 (1980) and Ennis & Litwack, Psychiatry and the Presumption of Expertise: Flipping Coins in the Courtroom, 62 Calif.L.R. 693, 736 (1974)); see Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1394-97 (9th Cir.1986); F.R.E. 402, 403; Magner, Exclusion of Polygraph Evidence: Can It Be Justified, 30 Crim.L.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barrel of Fun, Inc. D/B/A the Music Factory v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Accord, Smith v. Gonzales, 670 F.2d 522 , 528 n. 3 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1005 , 103 S.Ct. 361 , 74 L.Ed.2d 397 (1982); United States v. Masri, 547 F.2d 932, 936 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 309 , 54 L.Ed.2d 195 (1977); United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380, 393 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124 , 95 S.Ct. 810 , 42 L.Ed.2d 825 (1975); United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477, 483 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 995 , 95 S.Ct. 306 , 42 L.Ed.2d 267 (1974); United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 849 , …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Lee Jones v. John L. Weldon, Warden Coastal Correctional Institution
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
See also United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 390 (5th Cir. 1981), aff'd in rehearing en banc and portions of the panel opinion, including restatement of rule of inadmissibility, reinstated, 681 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); United States v. Masri, 547 F.2d 932, 936 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 932 , 97 S.Ct. 2640 , 53 L.Ed.2d 249 (1977); United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380, 393 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124 , 95 S.Ct. 810 , 42 L.Ed.2d 825 (1975); United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477, 483 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 995 , 95 S.Ct. 306 , 42 L.Ed.2d 267 (197…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Grant
D.S.C. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Bando, 244 F.2d 883 , 841 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 355 U.S. 844 , 78 S.Ct. 67 , 2 L.Ed.2d 53 (1957) (dicta); United States v. Masri, 547 F.2d 932 (5th Cir., 1977); United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380, 393 (5th Cir., 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124 , 95 S.Ct. 810 , 42 L.Ed.2d 825 (1975); United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477, 483 (5th Cir., 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 995 , 95 S.Ct. 306 , 42 L.Ed.2d 267 (1975); United States v. Pacheco, 489 F.2d 554, 566 (5th Cir., 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 909 , 95 S.Ct. 1558 , 43 L.Ed.2d 774 (1975); United States v. Frogge, 476 F.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hollis Clark
5th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Masri, 547 F.2d 932, 936 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 932 , 97 S.Ct. 2640 , 53 L.Ed.2d 249 (1977); United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380, 393 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124 , 95 S.Ct. 810 , 42 L.Ed.2d 825 (1975); United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477, 483 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Samih K. Masri and Wally Ghalayini
5th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Unlike some other circuits, the rule is well established in this circuit that the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible in federal criminal cases. 6 United States v. Cochran, 499 F.2d 380, 393 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Steven John Alexander
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
United States v. Frogge, 476 F.2d 969, 970 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 849 , 94 S.Ct. 138 , 38 L.Ed.2d 97 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. a Juvenile (2×)
Mass. · 1974 · confidence medium
In view of (1) the Fatalo case, (2) the fact that even eleven years later so few courts have admitted unstipulated polygraph evidence, 3 and (3) the fact that so many courts continue to refuse to admit such evidence because they still consider it unreliable (see, e.g., United States v. Frogge, 476 F. 2d 969, 970 [5th Cir. 1973]; United States v. Urquidez, 356 F. Supp. 1363 [C.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert Perry FROGGE and Clyde E. Hall, Defendants-Appellants
72-2980.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 10, 1973.
476 F.2d 969
Clyde E. Hall, pro se., Marion Lawrence Hicks, Jr., Dallas, Tex. (Court appointed), for Hall., Dan C. Rhodes, Houston, Tex. (Court appointed), for Frogge., Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty., Dennis R. Lewis, Dale Long, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Gewin, Coleman, Morgan.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The appellants in this case, Robert Perry Frogge and Clyde E. Hall, were charged in a two count indictment with (1) attempting to escape from federal custody, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and (2) assaulting two Deputy U.S. Marshals engaged in the performance of their duties, 18 U.S.C. § 111. A jury trial was held and both were found guilty as charged. [1] We affirm.

The appellants assert that the trial court committed the following reversible errors: (1) failed to give an adequate definition of “attempt to escape”; (2) denied appellants’ motion for transfer from the Sherman Division; (3) denied appellants’ motion for a continuance and (4) refused to grant appellants’ motion for the employment of a court appointed polygraph examiner. Frogge makes the additional contention that the evidence[*970] was insufficient under count II to convict him of assaulting the two Deputy U.S. Marshals. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and record in this case and find all of these contentions to be without merit.

The trial court’s instructions to the jury concerning the appellants’ defense to the attempt to escape count were, in our opinion, eminently fair. If we were to assume arguendo that the two Deputy U.S. Marshals in charge of appellants accepted the alleged bribe offer and acquiesced in the escape plan as contended by them on appeal, it is highly doubtful that such acquiescence would rise to the level of an affirmative defense. Cf. United States v. Allen, 432 F.2d 939 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Greenwell, 379 F.2d 320 (4th Cir. 1967); Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398, 403 (5th Cir. 1958). The trial court, nevertheless, treated the appellants’ acquiescence theory as an affirmative defense and told the jury to return a verdict of acquittal if they believed it. This was done without a specific request on the part of either appellant. We hold that the trial court gave full and adequate instructions to the jury as to all defenses raised for which there was a foundation in the evidence. Perez v. United States, 297 F.2d 12, 15-16 (5th Cir. 1961).

We are similarly unconvinced by the argument that the trial court erred when it refused to authorize the polygraph examinations requested by the appellants. Though a trend may be emerging towards loosening the restrictions on polygraph evidence, see e. g., People v. Houser, 85 Cal.App.2d 686, 193 P.2d 737 (1948), the rule is well established in federal criminal cases that the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible. United States v. Rodgers, 419 F.2d 1315, 1319 (10th Cir. 1969); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923). Nothing in United States v. Ridling, 350 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mich. Oct. 6, 1972), heavily relied upon by the appellants, persuades us to abandon the traditional view.

No discussion of the appellants’ remaining contentions is necessary except to state that the appellants failed to establish reversible error as to any of them. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

1

. The trial court sentenced each appellant to 5 years under Count I and 3 years under Count II.